ip fray’s Post

The discussions in the Council, among patent policy officers from all EU member states, will presumably and hopefully be rather more sophisticated and intellectually more honest than - saying if there's criticism on both sides, a compromise has clearly been struck; - claiming a register will help SEP holders overcome an unawareness defense by implementers that doesn't exist in patent law and which is also a non-issue because Huawei v. ZTE requires a simple infringement notice anyway (plus there are standards databases already); and - denouncing "fake news" while speaking at a fake SME event organized by notorious, overwhelmingly Apple-funded astroturfers without the presence of a single SME that actually has to license SEPs. (Contract developers don't, and if their customers are app developers, then even their customers are just using Apple's and Google's implementations of standards; they don't implement 5G, WiFi, and in practice maybe one out of a million apps comes with its own video/audio codec implementation). The EP is a parliament, not a technocracy, and that's OK, but a rapporteur's arguments and "logic" should meet a certain minimum standard. And deceptive lobbying is to be avoided, not emboldened. Someone's linguistic limitations, which raise questions in their own right about the commitment to this job, may make it harder to read Bloomberg's and others' articles about ACT, but that's where advisers like Cezara Petruc can help out.